- Tomorrow Calling
- Joined: Dec 2008
- Location: straya
- Posts: 6,888
- Select All Posts By This User
Sounds wonderful, I like my things to just work, "bricking" them and doing without them for more than ten days isn't part of that.
That is not a selling point for the bulk of the market. This is precisely why Apple with at most 3 devices, and all under one roof, can round up around 30% of the market, while Samsung needs to sell everything they've got, from the good, the bad, to the downright ugly, to achieve barely more than ownership of half the market. Never mind the other Android vendors.
For Joe Average, "customization", "boot loaders", ROMS, and all that other nonsense is completely trumped by ease of use, and breadth and depth of the Apple ecosystem. Given *choice*, *ability* (to pay) and *availability*, consumers are looking for Apple gear. All the customization and "freedom" and openness in the world can't cover up an interface that looks and works like garbage. Google *does not* have the basics of a touch interface mastered. This is and has always been the major embarrassment when it comes to Android. They didn't bother to perfect the basics. So even the highest-end Android smartphone looks and feels and performs like a science fair project. There's no polish. This is also why it just fails epically in the tablet space. All those problems that Android users force themselves to live with in the name of "freedom" become magnified and intensified on a tablet to the point that it just becomes unbearable.
If you don't build your house on a solid foundation it'll start falling apart.
"Biggest smartphone vendor in the world"? Sounds like something a twelve year old would say to me. If you don't see it though, nevermind.
The very fact that you went on this long back and forth with the other person makes you at least halfway to blame for the argument anyway. If an adult really is arguing with a twelve year old, the last thing they do is treat them like an equal in the argument and argue back and forth like that.
The whole thing came across to me as if two little boys were trying to best each other in the playground. The argument has already been over-stated and over-analysed, anyway. The subject matter is hardly even worth the time I'm spending writing this.
lol you think I made this up? I was stating a fact. Google is your friend... http://bit.ly/KOhh3I
Does this mean you are going to write to all the websites that said the same thing to tell them they are acting like children? The point I was trying to make is that this ban is hardly to going to seriously damage a company the size of Samsung. If you think that is acting like a child then thats your issue.
It sure as sh*t happened to the "biggest software vendor in the world." But a little differently.
Yeah and how much actual harm came to Microsoft from this? They seem to going ok.
However there are plenty of autos with gull wing doors. It is so easy to make a few tweaks to a design to skirt around any patents, it just isn't worth pursuing. In the example you provided it is a slightly different scenario since the replica makers were exactly copying an out of date classic in every detail. If Samsung were copying an Apple I with all of the related packaging and trying sell it to people who were attempting to impress others as it was an original worth a million dollars, then that would be a valid comparison. Mercedes Benz does nothing about Hyundai copying the look and feel of their current designs.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
However there are plenty of autos with gull wing doors. It is so easy to make a few tweaks to a design to skirt around any patents, it just isn't worth pursuing. In the example you provided it is a slightly different scenario since the replica makers were exactly copying an out of date classic in every detail. If Samsung were copying an Apple I with all of the related packaging and trying sell it to people who were attempting to impress people as it was an original worth a million dollars, then that would be a valid comparison. Mercedes Benz does nothing about Hyundai copying the look and feel of their current designs.
The primary reason I used that example of a court issued decision based on design patents, was primarily to show that much to the chagrin of various posters Apple did not pioneer suing over the copying of registered designs, that it has been part of various industries for many years.
Android is not a copy of iOS. Design? Really? Since when is a flat rectangle a unique design? Your comments might have more merit if you used punctuation and capitalization in your sentences.
Maybe not directly, but without iOS it wouldn't exist. Google have never been very good at coming up with new ideas, just copying others, usually badly. My opinion of why Android is so popular is because telephone companies push it. Cheaper phones, less subsidy. People get iPhones cause they want one. Then spend money at the app store and use it frequently for things other than phone calls. Most people get Android cause it was the cheapest plan and use it as a phone.
That is because 2 pieces of glass, approximately same size, always look alike. It is not that Samsung tablet doesn't look like iPad - it does; it is that such basic, minimalistic design shouldn't be patent-able. When you look at iPad from the front, there isn't much distinction there - save for home button (which Samsung doesn't have).
In my mind, question is: does Apple has exclusive rights on creating touchscreen tablet, or does it not. If not, then Apple should not have exclusive rights on flat glass surface. Major point of touchscreen device is that controls are "soft" - they appear on screen, as required; putting extra buttons only for sake of differentiation is silly at best. Or making it thicker than current technology actually demands. Or pretty much anything else Apple sarcastically recommended Samsung to do, some time ago, in order to differentiate.
No they didn't miss it. This suit was filed when the iPad 2 was the iPad released. The new iPad hasn't been added to the case so what it can do is moot.
That said, a difference in cellular tech really isn't a difference at all. Which is why that argument won't likely fly in the end. And even if by some weird chance it does fly Apple will just file a motion to have the new iPad added to the suit or file a new suit just to irritate Samsung a bit more
shouldn't make your day that they are thinking of all tablets as iPads. What should make your day is to hear them say they would rather have an iPad.
your "assumption" that a clearly stated "opinion" is an "assumption" goes to show what your "opinion" is worth.
Everyone I know with an Android tablet or phone are either Apple haters or went the cheap option and regret it.
Im looking forward to a larger screen on the next iPhone but 5.4 inch is ridiculous. I "assume" theres quite a few people who regret the purchase
The only ads you see for Apple products in Australia are Apple ads. HTC, Motorola and Samsung phones are all on the ads by telephone companies. The place I used to work were upgrading their phones and were told Android phones far better and more powerful than iPhones and were given the whole spill on cpu/memory ect. That confused them so they called me, I told them to use a Android phone before buying one, they ended getting iPhones.
Universally license (it's free, anyway), flood the market, whore your OS out to anyone who can slam together a box, offer a ton of of models at all sorts of price points (it amounts to what, hundreds? taking all Android phones into account), and so on. And in countries without carrier subsidies, Android phones are cheaper by far.
Further, Apple doesn't cater to the "I just want a cheap, simple phone" crowd. The Apple experience *must* be the same across the board. And the 3GS is only a single model.
What are the classic barriers in retail for the highest level of User Experience? Price. Availability. And very slim, very focused product lineups. This can be conducive to record sales, but it is not optimal for dominant market share. The iPhone is not an iPod.
It's the classic Microsoftian-OEM business model that supports Android. Great for quick, inflated market share, lousy for the end-to-end experience.
For example, Windows sells in huge numbers as well, thanks to the business model just mentioned. But would you trade in your Mac running OS X for a $500 Dell with some version of Windows on it? Probably not. But don't forget also, that the cost of entry into the Mac end of the Apple ecosystem (not including the Mini) is at least $1000. There are plenty of folks who probably want Macs, but the bottom end of the retail pyramid is much, much wider than the top. Apple doesn't compete, nor wants to compete in certain spaces.
So all of these considerations play into the reasons for the market share that Android smartphones enjoy today.
Provide actuals facts, by way of a cite/evidence (and not for "shipped units" or some bogus estimates put out by consulting firms, please). Otherwise, zip it.
That isn't a lot. At all.
First of all, we don't have any actual sales numbers put out by even a single Android manufacturer, so it's all guesstimates on everyone's part.
Second, it is likely that their numbers are high because of their very large share in China and India. That's easily explained: The iPhone is still not on China's largest carrier, and India's telecom backbone is still relatively primitive for data. I am willing to bet that Android's profits are pretty lousy in those markets. But we'll never really know, since these guys don't reveal any segment data (for a product that they claim is huge).
Agreed. It's probably less than 1%.
But, but… a million activations a day!